affidavit i, the undersigned ruth estelle becker do … · affidavit i, the undersigned ruth...
TRANSCRIPT
AFFIDAVIT
I, the undersigned
RUTH ESTELLE BECKER
DO HEREBY MAKE OATH AND SAY that -
1. I am an adult female student at present residing at
77 van der Linde Road, Bedfordview.
2. Save where appears from the context the facts deposed
to herein are within my own personal knowledge.
3. I am a friend of Mr. Auret van Heerden who is presently
being detained under Section 6 of the Terrorism Act at#
John Vorster Square.
4. To date I have visited Auret van Heerden three times
in detention. All three visits took place at John
Vorster Square, permission having been granted by one
Captain van Rensburg on the basis of my friendship with
Mr. van Heerden.
5. The first visit took place at 11 a.m. on the 18th
December 1981. The visit lasted for one hour during
which a security policeman by the name of Herbert remained
in the office. During the visit Major Cronwright and
Warrant Officer Patou came in and out of the office from
time to time. I was sitting very close to Auret facing him.
Auret had his back to Herbert. Herbert sat behind the desk
working, and at one stage was speaking on the telephone,
during which time Auret said to me "I have been quite
badly tortured". He also told me that he had been at
Pretoria Central Prison and had been placed in a cell
in which, if he stretched out his arm when lying on the
bed, he could touch the opposite wall. Later in the
conversation he referred again to torture, saying that
some of the security policemen who had tortured him had
come to respect him now because of the way he had taken
the torture.
6. The second visit occurred on the 5th January 1982 at
noon. The security policeman who was present during
this visit stayed in the room, sitting in a chair next
to the desk, while I sat almost parallel to him facing
Auret, who sat in front of the desk. I cannot recall
any reference to torture during this visit.
7. The third visit occured at 9 a.m. on February 1st, 1982.
I was taken to an office with Warrant Officer Patou
when Auret was brought in handcuffed by a Black man.i
This man left, leaving Warrant Officer Patou, in the
office. Warrant Officer Patou was sitting behind the
desk working. I had my back to him facing Auret who in
turn was facing Warrant Officer Patou. Warrant Officer Patou
called a Black man to sit in the office while he went out.
At this stage Auret told me that he had been taken to
Benoni, because "it is quieter there". Auret told
me that he had had his handcuffs chained to his leg
iron and was made to stand that way for eleven hours.
He said that a wet bag had been put over his head and
he had been given electric shocks at the same time.
He said that he had heard of "the bag" and electric
shocks but never of the two being given together. He
said that he had also been kicked and punched. He said
"When they had me on that floor I thought I was going
to die. I thought they are not going to believe me
and I am going to die".
8. During my third visit to Auret, he also told me that
Neil Aggett was in a cell across the corridor from him.
He said that Neil had been taken out of his cell three
days earlier and brought back early that morning. He
said that Neil had not taken his breakfast that morning.
9. Throughout the period described above I have been in
constant contact with Auret’s father, Mr. Dennis van
Heerden. I have also been in contact with Mr. van
Heerden's legal advisers and have reported.the allegations
of torture to them.
f@>cjl ve/v.10. I have Mr. van Heerden an undertaking that I would not
make any official complaints about Auret's maltreatment
without first consulting Mr. van Heerden. I have been
advised by Mr. van Heerden and his legal advisers that f
it is not certain whether a court would grant an interdict
' 11.
12.
restraining the security police from assaulting Auret.
The court would only have my evidence on which to judge
the situation and this evidence would no doubt be denied
by the security police. Furthermore, I had no reason to
believe that Auret would be assaulted in the future. My
impression was that the security police had tortured Auret
in order to extract information from him, but would not
torture him again as they already had the information they
required. Accordingly, there was no impending danger
which would be prevented by an Interdict. I was advised
that even if an interdict were granted, there was no
method of enforcing the order since nobody other than the
Minister and policemen acting in the course of their official
duties were entitled to access to detainees held under
Section 6 of the Terrorism Act. Thus, if they had the mind
to do so, the security police could ignore the interdict.
After discussions with Mr. van Heerden, I agreed not to
report the allegations to any official of the security
police as I believed that this would not serve any purpose
and may even have adverse consequences. I would see no
use In reporting allegations of torture to the alleged
perpetrators of that torture.
1 was concerned that if the security police discovered
that Auret had made these allegations, they would
victimise him either by further assaults or by the
withdraw! of those privileges that he was currently
enjoying. I was also concerned that I may be refused
further visits to Auret if it were discovered that he
had given me this information. I also did not wish to
jeopordise the visiting privileges that had been granted
to Auret*s mother and father.
I have no reason to doubt the allegations made by Auret
concerning his treatment by the security police.
c h d
SIGNED AND SWORN TO AT JOHANNESBURG on this the
day of February 1982, the Deponent having acknowledged
that she knows and understands the contents of this Affidavit.
BEFORE ME
COMMISSIONER OF OATHS
ANDREW JAMES SIMPSON SEBSAC o m m iss io n e r o f O a th s
Ex O f f ic io
C o m m iss io n e d O f f ic e r S .A .D .F .
4 5 Main Stree t, J o h a n n e sb u rg 2001
Historical Papers, Wits University
http://www.historicalpapers.wits.ac.za/admin/cms_header.php?pid=98[2013/03/12 07:52:17 AM]
Collection Number: AK2216 AGGETT, Dr Neil, Inquest, 1982 PUBLISHER:Publisher:- Historical Papers Research ArchiveLocation:- Johannesburg©2013
LEGAL NOTICES:
Copyright Notice: All materials on the Historical Papers website are protected by South African copyright law andmay not be reproduced, distributed, transmitted, displayed, or otherwise published in any format, without the priorwritten permission of the copyright owner.
Disclaimer and Terms of Use: Provided that you maintain all copyright and other notices contained therein, youmay download material (one machine readable copy and one print copy per page) for your personal and/oreducational non-commercial use only.
People using these records relating to the archives of Historical Papers, The Library, University of the Witwatersrand,Johannesburg, are reminded that such records sometimes contain material which is uncorroborated, inaccurate,distorted or untrue. While these digital records are true facsimiles of paper documents and the information containedherein is obtained from sources believed to be accurate and reliable, Historical Papers, University of the Witwatersrandhas not independently verified their content. Consequently, the University is not responsible for any errors oromissions and excludes any and all liability for any errors in or omissions from the information on the website or any relatedinformation on third party websites accessible from this website.
This document is part of a collection deposited at the Historical Papers Research Archive at The University of the Witwatersrand.